Update Action Plan Item

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: only supplied fields are changed (partial update), and the modified object is returned on success. It also provides the endpoint pattern. However, it does not disclose authentication requirements or rate limits, though these may be system-level.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at about 5 sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage details, required parameters, and API reference. Every sentence adds value, though the plural 'Action Plans' is a slight inconsistency with the singular resource name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: partial update behavior, required identifiers, and the API endpoint. It lacks guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, but for a standard update tool, it is adequately complete. The schema covers parameter details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The description reiterates the two required parameters (project_id, id) and implies that optional parameters are only updated if supplied, which adds semantic value beyond the schema. No new parameter details beyond what schema provides.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is for updating an existing Action Plan Item. It uses specific verb ('Update') and resource ('Action Plan Item'), and mentions that only supplied fields are changed, distinguishing it from create or delete operations. The name and title further reinforce this.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Use this to update an existing Action Plans' and lists required parameters (project_id, id), but it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools (e.g., bulk_update_action_plan_item for multiple items). The usage context is clear but lacks exclusions or comparisons.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.